Calendar

Reputation Activity

Since, to my knowldge, the campaing is not competitive game play like Skirmis, the rules can be bent like any good RPG. As the "GM" for our game, I have ZERO issue with the Rebel players passing off supply cards they get from a trunks durring the mission so long as they are adjacent to each other and spend an action to do so. It's a cost benifit they have to choose. I don't see how it breaks the game in anway so it's fine with me. That sort of tweak on the rules is not someting that should be black and white IMO. Now, handing off guns and other things in a three person game might be a sort of cheap way of playing and would not make for a fun game so I would not be down with that. For 99% of the rules, stick with the RRG, but if you just cite the RRG religiously all the time, you probbaly need to have a little more fun.

I've DM'd for years for 3.5 and some Star Wars D20. I'm LOVING Imperial Assault, both the campaign, and the skirmish. The only thing I feel the game lacks is an element of characterization and/or more choices.

I would love to see some sort of choice the players could make in the middle of a mission that would give a mission a different outcome, akin to how winning or losing the mission does, but mid mission, if that makes sense. Would also be cool to see a little more background about each of the characters. Anyone have any experience in any of this, or should I just whip up some backstory and take a 20 on the process?

My vote's for source book. A core book would be redundant, since we've seen the narrative details of the Imperial Military outlined in EotE and, I assume, AoR. In fact, the final AoR product may very well contain a section detailing how to implement the rules for Imperial players, and I imagine it would describe it much as we have here: identical mechanics, just with Duty switched around and some stats for standard Imperial equipment. I wouldn't count on an adventure, unless it's released in a source book.

The strength with the source book is that it could contain information on how to make a character that was a former Imperial before defecting to the Rebellion, or else just walking away from the military entirely. It might have some specializations or particular Motivations/Obligations to tie back to EotE.

Of course...

Agreed one hundred percent. If they did a source book, it would probably take a Zahn-style approach and talk about how most Imperials are just doing their jobs, aren't corrupt, and legitimately believe in their government. Such a book would have to encourage players to be non-evil, perhaps even serving as a sort of Internal Affairs to deal with the officers and governors that give the Empire a bad name.

Personally, as a fan of moral relativism and ambiguity, I try to take this approach in all my games. It doesn't always work -- sometimes you need a villain who just kicks the dog for the pure, evil pleasure -- but I try to keep it in the back of my players' minds.

Well I know that there's no shortage of would-be imperials out there. It's not all about the Sith this and the Sith that; the Empire holds a very primal appeal, and it must've been something they considered.

Yeah, the way AoR beta is set up, you can effectively use that core rulebook and the equipment found within to create Imperial Characters. You could even use the same Duty system, having the Empire give them starting equipment and upgrade their base of operations as they complete more assignments (ie, level up Duty). All you have to do is replace the 'Age of Rebellion' title with 'Age of the Empire', there is no real need for an Empire Source book as such.

Alright, so I'm sure that this has cropped up before, and I apologize to the veterans of this forum section - I only recently started looking into FFG:s Star Wars RPG, on account of my GM starting up an EotE game, played my first actual session just yesterday.

Anyway; What about the Empire?

Edge of the Empire obviously focuses on bounty hunters, explorers, criminals, various semi-neutral groups and their (mis-) adventures.

Age of Rebellion is clearly meant to focus on the rebellion, and the Alliance to Restore the Republic, operatives part of that, and their missions and their struggles against the Empire.

Force and Destiny is believed to primarily concern the Jedi, perhaps the Sith, in various capacities. I know virtually nothing about this, or how this would be portrayed in the Rebellion Era, considering that there's not that many of them around.

This covers many of the different iconic facets of the Star Wars universe, but there's one glaring omission to me. The Empire. Imperial operatives, stormtrooper commandos, spies, black op. scientists, death star operators. All those that aren't actually Sith, but just loyal subjects to the Empire - some may even genuinely believe that this is better than the Republic, and honestly, to many people, I am sure the Empire was.

It's just odd to me, is all. Has there been any words if they're considering making more Core Rulebooks in the future? Because it must've been discussed at length, I'm sure.

First, if someone comes in from out of town and wins so be it. That should be a good indicator that you need to up your game and get out of your rut. Its very easy to be a big winner in one meta and then go to a completely different one and get owned. I encourage people to travel to different areas to play it makes the game more interesting for everyone involved. Plus, in an event like Sullust if someone comes in and wins first there are still 3-4 other very nice prizes.

I have found in other games that the people most offended are it are the people who play only in there store. They may play the same 5-6 people week in and week out and then they ask someone to run a tournament one Saturday so they can prove they are the best-est in their store. The event is created and advertised and then random dude smoking a cigar and wearing a poncho comes in all Dirty Harry style and wins the event. I have heard it all from "I am not playing in tournaments to give someone else my money" to "I am so disappointed no one from our store won and we let some outsider take our prizes". I find it pretty funny to be fair. As someone who enjoys traveling to stores and the competition I have no problems with it. People who feel to be disappointed the most are the ones who try to fiance their hobby with tournament winnings. You have to be very good and very lucky to continually do that, and even so, if you won an ISD at a MoS event, the event cost around $15, then you have travel time, and probably lunch or dinner.... you didn't save anything.

MoS is a bit different since its pre-releases and I can understand why people may be upset when an outsider shows up to his 2nd or 3rd event. Its just the nature of the beast.

We have a few local stores here who tried not doing prizes. For WM/H it as a free tournament and either the TO or the Store ate the cost of the Steamroller Pins/Coins and that was all that was given. Others have tried no entrance fee and just ate the cost of a league kit to give away. Both those events had lower than normal turnouts since there was little excitement or thrill in trying to win some free swag.

This is not an uncommon "issue" in the world of miniature gaming, and I suspect that some people who play armada are new to that scene.

Am I the only one who sees people complaining about prize snipers as whiners? Just because they are the regulars at a store that doesn't mean they are entitled to the prize support at an event. The prize support still needs to be won. If they can't defend their home turf when someone from out of town jumps in, they only have themselves to blame. The "Prize Sniper" just played 3 rounds of Armada with your players. That's 6 hours of intel and instruction. Learn from it. Get better at the game. Beat him the next time he comes back.

I couldn't agree more. The more people that show up to an event the better for everyone. If you are upset that you are the best player at your FLGS and expected to win first place but someone better than you came along and won first place get over yourself. If you loose to one of these people learn your lessons and take them into consideration for your next tournament. you should view these people as a friendly challenge instead of a threat.

I started playing with a new group a few weeks ago and started out as the worst player in the group. every time I go in for a game though I learn something new and get a little better, tournys are no different.

Just going to throw this out there as I believe most of us would agree that the act of "Prize Sniping" AKA attending another event with a large prize (like Massing of Sullust) is a perfectly acceptable if not encouraged practice regardless of the player's circumstances and/or intentions. Having players attend multiple events, even traveling great distances to attend is a great indicator that the Armada community is growing and interest is spreading. By giving them a negative label such as "Prize Sniping" you back pedal on growth as a whole and it only serves to isolate your own community.

These type players bring the following benefits:- Boost numbers at a FLGS event, and therefore drives customer interest
- Boost on the day sales with drinks, food, products etc for the hosting FLGS- Possibly boost the prize pool (if a large enough outcome)- They bring knowledge or meta that your local group may have never experienced before and will now gain that knowledge, becoming better players in the process
- They take away knowledge or meta from your local group to bring back to their local group and become better players in the process
- The building blocks of community spirit and networking that spands across suburbs, cities and states. Something the internet can never provide because the experience is physically tangible.

It is entirely irrelevant if a few of these players have already won other events, already have the prizes, have intentions to sell their prizes online or whatever negative conditions that you can come up with because the above benefits still apply and they still have to win and if they do they are entitled to the prize fit for that win. The issue is not with external players attending but with a conflict of your interests with theirs. Yes, I acknowledge that there were some Massing of Sullust events that had minimal numbers, that is not the fault of the player who has gone out of their way to go to multiple events however. This is coming from me who lives in Australia where Massing of Sullust does not exist, have Armada events with minimum 10 players and read that all over the world that some Massing of Sullust events had only 2-6 players turn up. We would fully support anyone who travels to multiple MoS events if able and congratulate those that have won prizes, local or traveling.

So to all those groups that feel slighted that outsiders came to your event and won, think of it of as an business booster for your FLGS, a step forward in the growth of the game we all love and the opportunity to look inwards to yourself to why you did not win and then attend the next event to test what lessons were learnt.

Just because you can't figure out how to beat a grand master in chess does not mean the game is broken. Just because you cannot figure out (despite numerous examples) how to use squadrons effectively does not mean they are broken.

I've said it a good number of times, so I get tired saying it, but not everyone will have seen what I've said before. So you're right, I should be more helpful.
See, I don't think people are looking at squadrons the right way. A lot of people look at the fleet cost of fighters, and the loss of another ship activation and think, "They can't punch through to the hull with only a black die or a red die."
If you're only thinking of doing hull damage with every attack then yea, it looks like a waste of points.
Thing is, that's not the right way to look at it. Simple build that requires no skill to use: Rhymer, Tie Bomber, Tie Advanced x2

All of those shoot black dice (Crits don't count on the Advanced, but it's still a 75% of 1 damage) at medium range with Rhymer. (Expanded Hangers) That's 4 dice being shot at a ship from a squadron activation. What's even better is that unlike a ship rolling 4 dice and getting, lets say 6 damage, the defender does not get to brace down that 6. They are being attacked FOUR times. 2, 2, 1, 1 and still have to deal with your ships one or two attacks. So in your activation you one ship, let's say a VSD at close range, will activate squadrons, deal 2, 2, 1, 1 and then itself get two attacks for 3 black 3 Red, and 2 Red 1 Black -- 7 Damage and 3 Damage. One activation you get a total of 16 damage (which is already better than just your two ship attacks) but what's even better is those bomber attacks most likely will not be braced or redirected because they know your ship still has to attack. Or, even better they use a brace for your bomber attack meaning one of your ships attacks will not get braced for sure. You break up the attack in to 6 separate attacks which makes it harder to reduce over all damage coming into the ship.
If you just attack with the ship and throw in a concentrate fire command you're looking at max damage of 14 Damage, they spend a brace, it's now 7 and an Mark II AF can redirect that onto it's side and front shields to eat it all up, and spread it even better if it has advanced projectors on it. With the squadron command you're looking at a max damage of 12 from your front arc (only 2 less) and adding a possible 2,2,1,1 = 6 damage which is harder to stop. Already a much better deal in terms of damage and their ability to negate that damage

That concentrate fire command could essential be eaten up by a defense token, whereas the squadron command cannot and if even one of the attacks is blocked using the token, it just means your fist full of dice from your Capital Ship(s) won't have to worry about it. Win/Win.
With boosted coms it's even easier to control squadrons now. Armada is not necessarily an easy game if you're playing really good people. It's hard and you HAVE to be able to think much further a head and see the big picture.

Synergy. Don't look at each step as a stand alone section that has no impact on the rest of your turn and future turns.

I've fought against Rhymer too many times to count. Frankly, if you think he's broken, you're doing it wrong. He is very easy to shut down. When Intel is added to the mix, then feel free to start complaining again.

Squadrons are a tool. When you take all ships you are essentially bringing a skew list. Skews can often work really well in other game systems (and this one) as if you don't hit someone with the answer to your skew you probably win.

The biggest issue in wave1 has been that most fleets only had 1 carrier. Listen to the IFF GenCon report when they talk to the GenCon winner and he states he strategy was to kill the carrier and the squadrons become non-threats. That is extremely smart play. That shows good tactics and strategic thought to be able to identify the lynch-pin of the list, neutralize it, and then win. Imperials at least have demolisher to distract your opponents from your carrier. As wave2 hits, I can take 2x ISD1s with Hangar Bays and Boosted Comms with motti and still take 10 squadron stands with aces and stuff mixed in. I now have 2 carriers with full squadron support. I am very excited for this. Motti affords me an extra turn of squadron commands as my ships have 3 more HPs. That is the stlye of armada i choose to play. All ships may be safer, or easier to pilot because your choice will typically be engineering or navigation commands. Ship spam is also with lower command value ships so you can adjust your plans and adapt much easier compared to high command ships.

squadrons force you to use other a different command other than navigate/engineering each turn. Some people don't like it as it means you may make a mistake and issue the wrong dial (watch my video report, I did that very thing). If you get comfortable running squadrons and know when and how to use them and how to place them to either shoot the enemy or catch them when they move they have a big pay off. Its great being able to shoot a ship and then move my squadron into its projected trajectory. Now my opponent has to decide if he wants to move into that little bees nest or adjust course, which sometimes takes him out of the fight.

Different strokes for different folks. If you don't like squadrons, don't play them. just don't complain when someone does, knows how to apply them, and starts picking apart your fleet. How many people would jump on a "squadrons have to be taken" campaign because a few people lost their carriers to all ship builds, so clearly all ships are broken and that's not how armada was intended to be played...... posts like these work both ways.

Bombers, including Rhymer can be intercepted and prevented from shooting at your ships. Your Gladiator cannot.
TIE fighters are fast, that is their one edge. TIE's have 3 hull points, X-Wings have 5. TIE's shoot 3 blue, X-wings shoot 4 blue. TIE's are not bombers, X-wings are bombers and escorts. X-wings do not need to be faster, you just need to use them by thinking a head.
If I launch a Rhymer ball at your ship, send X-wings on an intercept path, or if your worried about speed, send a few A-wings at them. When you see I'm deploying Rhymer and bombers, you should probably consider assigning some squadron commands. That's part of the game. It seems like a lot of people only want to play in a very ridged form.
"They brought Rhymer now I need to spend commands to activate squadrons to intercept and shoot at him, this game is broken."
(If they even consider doing that at all,) It seems a lot of people here would just sit there and take the damage and complain about how the game is not fair, when in reality they A.) didn't bring squadrons, so it's on them or B.) didn't activate the squadrons and therefore were unable to intercept and destroy. Once again, their fault.